FORUM RENAME: CEVIL COMPACTS and CLUNKY SLRS

[kshapero]

It seems that 'SLR' would be descriptive and if you want to use the word 'clunky' you should rename "Large Format' to 'Really Really Clunky'. 'Film' should be named 'Outdated Technology Film' and anything digital 'Advanced Inferior Imaging'.

Laughing out loud, but true.

 

[clicker]

Who you calling clunky ?
EVIL

 

[rover]

I thought the forum should have been renamed The Silent Brotherhood of the SLR. But that is just me.

 

[will-i_am]

my me-super is clunk free

 

[froyd]

some might be big boned, and some are ergonomically impaired, but clunky is just plain offensive.

 

[wakarimasen]

snicky (Sneaky)?

 

[Gumby]

Kind of embarrassing, Stephen.

I tend to agree. The intended sense-of-humor isn't very adapatable to a written format. In general it speaks little of a committment to photography and more to an equipment bias... which I suppose a forum dedicated to rangefinder cameras is entitled to. Overall I would hope a forum like RFF is essentially phoitographically oriented with a predisposition for rangefinders rather than whatever that might be implied by calling other camera systems "evil".

 

[rbsinto]

Until we find a better name, the Micro 4/3 forum has been renamed to the CEVIL forum -- COMPACT ELECTRONIC VIEWFINDER INTERCHANGEABLE LENS for this new and quickly growing camera group.

With that, the EVIL SLR forum took on a new meaning, so it was renamed to CLUNKY SLRS.

The best possible names? Probably not.

But that is what we have for now.

Stephen

Since I have been referring to my SLRs as "My old, clunky, laughably backward, hopelessly outdated, manual focus, mechanical Nikons", for many, many years now, may I assume you will begin sending me appropriately large royalty fees for using my terminology to name a Forum?

 

[CameraQuest]

I tend to agree. The intended sense-of-humor isn't very adapatable to a written format. In general it speaks little of a committment to photography and more to an equipment bias... which I suppose a forum dedicated to rangefinder cameras is entitled to. Overall I would hope a forum like RFF is essentially phoitographically oriented with a predisposition for rangefinders rather than whatever that might be implied by calling other camera systems "evil".

I tend to disagree. RFF is a special place for RF photographers to enjoy their Rangefinder craft, shooting style, equipment, and camaraderie with other RF enthusiasts - as well as most anything else associated with rangefinder cameras. Unlike most web sites, at RFF SLRs are 2nd class. The SLR forum was added only to keep SLR posts from cluttering up RF forums.

Stephen

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Humor hasn't been the Intertubes' chatrooms' forté ever since people other than the DOD started using computers for communications. There will always ---always--- be somebody who is offended by something.

This is why they invented smilies. But even then... :bang:

 

[bwcolor]

I tend to disagree. RFF is a special place for RF photographers to enjoy their Rangefinder craft, shooting style, equipment, and camaraderie with other RF enthusiasts - as well as most anything else associated with rangefinder cameras. Unlike most web sites, at RFF SLRs are 2nd class. The SLR forum was added only to keep SLR posts from cluttering up RF forums.

Stephen

You make the rules. I love rangefinders, but sometimes I'm a closet clunker and I like and respect the people on this board, so I appreciate that you allow other topics on the board. I've recently been wanting to shoot with a polarizer, longer focal lengths and to do some close in portraits. None of my rangefinder gear really shine in these areas, so I have recently purchased some clunky SLR's, but it was RFF members that directed me to which SLR system to use. I thank them and you for allowing that discussion. I only ask that you add equally denigrating titles to any forum that is not purely rangefinder. Sounds like fun. Please start with the large format/TLR/P&S crowd... How dare they get that far afield.

 

[GoneSavage]

Discrimination is an ugly thing.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Where do pellicle mirror SLRs fit in? 😉

Chris

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Here:

http://www.dslrexchange.com/

Post SLR threads to our Co-Forum, dslrexchange.com. No "Clunky" status there. Of course, they are still Clunky. Well, my Retina Reflex-S with it's non-instant return Mirror is nice. The Canon Pellix did not clunk, sounded more like a Canon 7. But the VF was dark with anything but an F1.2 lens on it. Then it was big and heavy.

 

[Gumby]

at RFF SLRs are 2nd class.

I stand corrected. Thank you for the very precise and concise clarification.

 

[rover]

The Silent Brotherhood of the SLR Conspiracy...

Really, our strength is from the hidden fact of our numbers. Don't lead anyone to think that we actually exist.

 

[Gumby]

The Silent Brotherhood of the SLR Conspiracy...

Really, our strength is from the hidden fact of our numbers. Don't lead anyone to think that we actually exist.

I deny it all and if put under oath, I would deny it again. 😀

 

[bgb]

" I'll take the Fifth on that question and any other dammed questions you might ask me"

:angel:

 

[dave lackey]

the leica r5 is not clunky, evil or any such thing -- waiting on my 24mm lens

Gotta admit, those R4,5, 6 and 7 bodies are nice!🙂

 

[bwcolor]

Here:

http://www.dslrexchange.com/

Post SLR threads to our Co-Forum, dslrexchange.com. No "Clunky" status there. Of course, they are still Clunky. Well, my Retina Reflex-S with it's non-instant return Mirror is nice. The Canon Pellix did not clunk, sounded more like a Canon 7. But the VF was dark with anything but an F1.2 lens on it. Then it was big and heavy.

That forum has everything except forum members. What is up with the Viagra post? I guess that is important to SLR jocks. ehh?